The Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition of Kiran Singh of Naubasta, Kanpur Nagar with a cost of Rs 1 lakh while directing the hand over of the possession of the house to the bank.
A single bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Smt Kiran Singh.
The petition has been filed by the petitioner/ auction purchaser seeking quashing of the order dated 6.12.2021 passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad.
The Court noted,
Thereby the Debts Recovery Tribunal has disposed of the Misc Application filed by respondent no 4 (bank). Operative portion of that order reads as below :
“Considered the rival contentions of the parties.
It is very necessary on the part of the Auction Purchaser to handover the physical possession of the property in question to respondent bank in compliance of order dated 10.04.2017 and 25.10.2021 of the Tribunal. To comply with the order dated 10.04.2017 and 25.10.2021. The SSP Kanpur is hereby instructed to provide adequate assistance of Police to the respondent bank so that the respondent bank could take physical possession of the property in question, in case auction purchaser failed to hand over the physical possession of the property in question within 15 days. Respondent Bank is also directed to depute its Authorized Officer to contact the SSP Office for police assistance and take physical possession of the property after 15 days, if not handed over by the auction purchaser within 15 days.
Respondent bank is also directed to handover the Demand Draft as per the order dated 10.04.2017 to the auction purchaser while taking/receiving the physical possession of the property.
Auction Purchaser is also directed to hand over the physical possession of the property in question within 15 days to the Respondent Bank.
In the light of above, the MA is disposed off accordingly.
Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties as per Rule.
Record be consigned to the record room.”
The Court further noted that,
In pursuant to proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’. The secured asset House Awas Vikas, Hanspuram, Naubasta, Kanpur, owned by respondent was proceeded against. Thus respondent was deprived of possession and the property was put up for auction.
According to the petitioner, she purchased the same for total consideration Rs 16,93,000/- against sale certificate dated 4.8.2012. She has continued in undisturbed possession over the same, since then.
Being aggrieved by the proceedings under the ‘Act’, respondent no 4, principal borrower filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad on 10.10.2011. It was decided by order dated 10.04.2017.
It is the case of the respondent no 4 that he complied with the terms of the order of the DRT dated 10.4.2017.
The Court also noted that, against the order of DRT, the petitioner preferred Appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad. That appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 28.11.2018. No challenge was raised by the petitioner to that order. It attained finality.
Despite the above fact, the petitioner somehow continued to retain her possession. On its part the respondent no 4 claims to have fully complied with the order dated 10.4.2017.
“Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the order dated 6.12.2021 does not suffer from any error. Once the order dated 10.4.2017 attained finality upon dismissal of appeal arising therefrom i.e in light of the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal dated 28.11.2018 passed in Appeal, no further rights survived to the petitioner as may have allowed her to continue in possession for a single day beyond the time granted by the DRT. In any case by order dated 6.12.2021 the Tribunal granted the petitioner 15 days time to vacate the premises. Even that has not been done.
The rights of the petitioner have been extinguished, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. The fact that the petitioner is a lady does not entitle her to deprive the rightful owner of the property from its enjoyment. Whatever money the petitioner may be entitled to may be claimed by her from the Bank but not by way of ransom by holding over possession of the property not belonging to her,” the Court observed while dismissing the writ petition with cost of Rs 1,00,000.
“It is further provided, that upon the copy of this order being placed before the executing authorities including the District Magistrate, they shall ensure the possession of the disputed property is made over to respondent no 4 within a period of one week from date of such compliance being made failing which the said respondent together with the petitioner may expose themselves to compensation. Cost to be paid to the respondent no 4,” the order reads.